planning for the shaping force of cultural dynamics in a component content-management system...

216 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 57, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2014

Tutorial

Planning for the Shaping Force of Cultural Dynamics in aComponent Content-Management System Implementation—Feature byREBEKKA ANDERSEN

Abstract—Problem: This tutorial explains how technical communication organizations can improve their chancesfor a successful component content-management system (CCMS) implementation if they plan for the shaping forceof cultural dynamics in the technology diffusion process. Many component content –management (CCM) thoughtleaders have identified people factors as a major barrier to successful CCMS implementation. They recognize thenecessity of gaining buy-in from all stakeholders and persuading CCMS users to change their habits of practice,follow new processes, and learn new authoring tools and methodologies. This tutorial complements existingdiscussions of people factors by offering a more complex understanding of what these factors really mean and howto negotiate them. Key concepts: This understanding is articulated through three situated views of CCMSs and theirdiffusion in organizations: (1) CCMSs are social constructs; (2) CCMS diffusion is a multistage, perception-drivencommunication process; and (3) CCMS diffusion is mediated by different components of organizational culture. Thesesituated views highlight the shaping force of cultural dynamics in CCMS diffusion projects, and they speak to someof the reasons why common information transfer approaches to diffusion do not work. Key lessons: Given theseviews, CCM initiative leaders should consider the following recommendations for carrying out a CCMS diffusionproject: (1) assess cultural dynamics in the organization and (2) implement diffusion enablers to facilitate sharedunderstanding and learning and to guide actions toward common goals. Key lessons offer a comprehensive set ofsample research questions that can be used to assess cultural dynamics as well as three kinds of diffusion enablersthat can be implemented: interactive communication channels, training programs, and collaboratively developedguides. Implications: CCM initiative leaders who understand and plan for the shaping force of cultural dynamics inthe CCMS diffusion process and who follow best practices for transitioning to CCM will improve their chances for asuccessful CCMS implementation. Leaders are encouraged to use the research questions and diffusion enablers arearticulated here as a starting point for negotiating people factors that can impede diffusion.

Index Terms—Component content management (CCM), component content -management system (CCMS), culturalassessment, cultural dynamics, diffusion enablers, information transfer, social construct, technology diffusion.

Technical communication (TC) organizationsare increasingly adopting componentcontent-management systems (CCMSs) tosupport the move from desktop publishing tocomponent content management (CCM), an overallprocess for creating, managing, and deliveringhighly engineered and content components thatare not limited to any one purpose, technology,or output. CCMSs enable these components tobe assembled on demand “to meet customers’specific needs, providing them with what theyare looking for, when they are looking for it, andin the format they are looking for it in” [1, p.318]. When content is authored and publishedas stand-alone components, customers can goto product websites (on their phone, tablet, orcomputer); request specific information about a

Manuscript received July 12, 2012; revised November 01,2013 and April 03, 2014; accepted April 03, 2014. This workwas supported by a UC Davis Small Grant in Aid of Research,awarded by the Committee on Research.The author is with the University of California Davis, Davis, CA95616 USA (email: [email protected]).

IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2014.2342336

product; and receive just the content they need andno more in a device-appropriate format. CCM thusholds great promise for enabling organizations tomeet changing customer expectations for productinformation.

While many organizations have successfullytransitioned to CCM, the transition for most hasbeen anything but smooth. Moving to CCM is acostly and complex undertaking [2]–[6], requiringorganizations to not only adopt new tools setsbut also overhaul the business, communication,and information development and managementprocesses on which they have long relied [7]. Notsurprisingly, CCMS implementations tend to beplagued with problems, a topic that has beendiscussed in a number of CCM-focused onlinecommunities and practitioner-focused articlesand reports [8]–[11]. The reason cited most oftenfor problematic or failed implementations is alack of analysis and strategic planning beforeselecting a CCMS [2], [3], [10], [12]–[17]. Consultantgroups, such as Comtech Services, IntentionalDesign, and The Rockley Group have respondedto the need for more analysis and planning with

0361-1434 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

ANDERSEN: PLANNING FOR THE SHAPING FORCE OF CULTURAL DYNAMICS 217

an abundance of best practices resources thatoffer CCM initiative leaders guidance in analyzingbusiness and customer needs and developing anenterprise-wide strategy for creating, managing,and delivering content. Many of these resourcesalso highlight the need for leaders to assessorganizational readiness for CCM and to developa change-management plan that emphasizesstakeholder input, communication, and training[1], [8], [18]–[21]. These resources have gone a longway in helping TC organizations prepare for CCM,yet many organizations continue to experienceunexpected challenges and setbacks, particularlyat the point when they are ready to use a CCMS totest and then deploy their content strategy.

This tutorial explains how TC organizationscan improve their chances for successful CCMSimplementation if they plan for the shaping forceof cultural dynamics in the technology diffusionprocess, or the process by which a new technologyis communicated to and adopted by a target group.CCM thought leaders increasingly identify peoplefactors as a major barrier to successful CCMSimplementation [8], [11], [16], [18], [19], [22]. Theyrecognize that user acceptance of a CCMS requiresnot only gaining buy-in from all CCM initiativestakeholders but also persuading those who willuse the CCMS to change their habits of practice,follow new processes, and learn new authoringtools and methodologies. But people factors—whatthese really mean and how to negotiate them—havenot been discussed in any comprehensive wayin CCM literature. Most resources highlight theneed to analyze and engage stakeholders but donot offer a very textured understanding of howorganizational culture or previous experience withtechnology shapes people’s perceptions and actionstoward a CCMS.

This tutorial complements existing discussions inthe CCM literature on assessing organizationalreadiness and managing change by offeringtechnical communicators a more complexunderstanding of different ways in which people’sbehaviors toward and attitudes about a CCMSdiffusion project are shaped. It does so byarticulating some of the disruptive culturaldynamics at play in the CCMS diffusion process.The goal of the tutorial is not to offer a how-toapproach to CCMS diffusion, as such an unsituatedapproach would be neither useful nor desired.Rather, the goal is to offer recommendations forcarrying out a CCMS diffusion project. Theserecommendations include a comprehensive set ofresearch questions that leaders can use to assess

cultural dynamics in their organizations and adescription of diffusion enablers that leaders canimplement to facilitate understanding and learningand guide stakeholder actions.

The tutorial is divided into two main sections:key concepts and key lessons. The key conceptssection presents three situated views of CCMSsand their diffusion in organizations. The keylessons present recommended research questionsto ask, which grow out of these situated views,and diffusion enablers to implement. Both sectionsdraw on examples from my 2007 study of the earlystages of a technical documentation department’stransition to CCM. The department—centrallylocated at company headquarters and composedof eleven writers, two editors, a webmaster, anda supervisor—produced all documentation forthe US Fortune 500 company, which specializedin heating, ventilation, air conditioning, andrefrigeration equipment and systems. The teamwas looking to adopt a CCMS primarily becauseits desktop publishing environment was nolonger meeting its needs for content reuse andconsistency, translation, and efficiency in theauthoring, review, and publishing process. Thestudy revealed different ways that organizationalculture and technology experiences shape howpeople individually and collectively perceive a CCMSand how they subsequently respond to and interactwith the system during an adoption project. Theteam I studied experienced numerous setbacks andproblems during their trial of the CCMS that theyattempted to adopt; these setbacks and problemswere largely the result of CCM stakeholders notfeeling valued in the organization and not feelingready for or invested in the CCM initiative.

KEY CONCEPTSThis section presents three situated views ofCCMSs and their diffusion in organizations: (1)CCMSs are social constructs, (2) CCMS diffusionis a multistage, perception-driven communicationprocess, and (3) CCMS diffusion is mediated bydifferent components of organizational culture.These situated views highlight the shaping force ofcultural dynamics in CCMS diffusion projects.

Selection of Literature Key concepts discussedin this section grow out of David Dayton’sproposed hybrid analytical framework for studyinginformation technology adoption and use [23].The framework blends the theory of the socialconstruction of technology (SCOT), adoption anddiffusion theory (ADT), and cultural-historical


activity theory (CHAT). Together, these theories offertechnical communicators a lens through whichto understand CCMS diffusion from a rhetorical,socially constructed perspective, a perspective thatcounters more common diffusion models based onthe concept of information transfer, or the idea thatthe more information potential adopters have abouta new technology, the more likely they are to adoptit. (See [24]–[26] for critiques of these models.) Inmy description of each key concept, I draw onthree kinds of literature: peer-reviewed literaturethat defines and describes associated theories,peer-reviewed literature that examines modelsand presents studies of technology transfer anddiffusion, and popular CCM sources that highlightCCMS implementation case studies and challenges.

Concept 1: CCMSs are Social Constructs WhenCCMSs gained official market recognition in 2008,with the inaugural publication of The XML andComponent Content Management Report 2008[27]), phrases such as “rapid deployment” and“up and running in 30 days” appeared all overCCMS marketing material. In online forumsfocused on CCM topics, practitioners were alsoasking questions such as, “What CCMS is best forreuse?” or “Which XML editor will work best withDITA?” These CCMS promises and practitionerquestions represented a tool-centric approach toCCM, an approach that many CCM consultantshave cited as a key reason for unsuccessfulCCMS implementations [14], [15], [17]. Too manygroups at the time were selecting CCMSs basedon recommendations and nice-to-have featuresand functionalities rather than on well-researchedorganizational needs and goals. Although we nowsee fewer tool-centric approaches to selectingCCMSs, largely thanks to the increase in CCMplanning resources, implementations can still beproblematic when vendors, system integrators,and adopting organizations treat a CCMS as aone-size-fits-all system.

CCMSs are social constructs. A social construct isa concept, phenomenon, category, or technology,the value and meaning of which is created or“constructed” through the social interactions of aparticular culture or group. A social construct canbe a real, tangible product, such as a trophy orbicycle, but it has no inherent value or meaning;what it means to one group will be differentfrom what it means to another. The theory ofsocial construction of technology (SCOT) helps usunderstand CCMSs as social constructs. SCOTholds that the meaning of a technology does notreside in the technology itself. Rather, technological

artifacts are socially constructed and interpreted;their meanings cannot be isolated from the socialcontexts in which they were developed nor cantheir meanings be understood apart from the socialcontexts that influence users’ interpretations of theartifacts [28]–[35]. These contexts include norms,structures, histories, patterns of interaction, andvalue systems. Users’ prior knowledge, pre-existingexpectations, and experience with a technologyalso influence how they come to understandthat technology [32]. These components—socialcontexts, prior knowledge, expectations, andexperience—all influence the adoption and use ofa new technology.

Doheny-Farina, drawing on SCOT, asserts thata one-size-fits-all view of technology promotesthe assumption that “when differing participantssee the innovation differently, they are eithermisperceiving or the innovation has been somehowdistorted” [26, p. 6–7]. This assumption underliesmany problem-laden technology adoptions,including CCMS diffusion projects. Technologydiffusors, such as CCMS vendors and systemintegrators, may attribute a problematic adoption,for instance, to a lack of understanding on behalfof adopters or to a flawed tool. A common responseis either to fix the flaw or to provide more trainingand information about the tool [7].

My CCMS diffusion study findings illustrate thiscommon response well. Two months after thetechnical documentation team decided not toadopt the CCMS that they had used on a trialbasis, vendor executives set up a meeting withthe group to present their “new and improved”CCMS that addressed what they claimed to be “allof the problems” that the team had experiencedduring the diffusion process. The executivesspoke confidently about what they perceived tobe the primary reasons for the team’s decisionnot to adopt the CCMS: poor communication(the result of inconsistent documentation andlack of task-focused training) and a system thatwas too complex and that needed to be moreintuitive. Although poor communication andusability problems certainly influenced the team’sadoption decision, data analysis revealed that thedecision was based primarily on three factors:team members’ fear that subject matter expertreviewers would resist the system, their concernthat the CCMS was too much of a departure fromexisting practice, and their realization that theywere nowhere near ready to implement a CCMS.Since the theory of SCOT helps us to understand,the meaning and value of the CCMS were tied up in


the social system of the group attempting to makesense of it in the context of their day-to-day work.

Concept 2: CCMS Diffusion is a Multistaged,Perception-Driven Communication Process Twomajor challenges that organizations face duringa CCMS implementation project include gainingbuy-in from stakeholders and training them to usenew processes and technologies to write, manage,and publish content. CCM best practices resourcesthus emphasize the importance of communicatingCCM initiative goals and benefits to stakeholdersand dedicating significant time and resources toa comprehensive training program [1], [36]. Whattends not to be emphasized in these discussions,however, is the need to adopt communication andtraining approaches that move beyond one-waytransfers of information from vendors to potentialadopters, managers to stakeholders, and experttrainers or consultants to training participants.

The problem with relying on an informationtransfer approach to communication and trainingin a CCMS diffusion project is that this approachdoes not account for how people learn or cometo be persuaded to adopt or reject a new idea,process, or technology. Rather, it focuses on theone-way transmission of messages through variouscommunication channels and presupposes that ifthose messages are well written and transmittedwith reasonable accuracy that receivers will beable to apply the information successfully totheir problem-solving activities. This dominantapproach to technology diffusion, however, hasbeen criticized by numerous communication andsocial science experts because it fails to accountfor how individuals come to understand what thetransmitted information might mean in terms ofthe social context in which it is to be used [25],[26], [37]–[39]. Many recent diffusion scholarshave also criticized diffusion approaches thattreat communication as a one-way, linear process[40]–[44].

A more contextualized, knowledge-centeredapproach to diffusion is proposed by Rogers.His model of diffusion of innovations (DoI) offersCCM initiative leaders and system vendors andintegrators a framework for understanding howCCMS diffusion participants come to perceivenew innovations and come to be persuaded toadopt or reject them. Rogers describes diffusionas “the process by which an innovation [anidea, practice, or object perceived as new] iscommunicated through certain channels over timeto members of a social system” [37, p. 11]. He

calls this process the innovation-decision process,which is divided into a time-ordered sequenceof five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision,implementation, and confirmation. At the heart ofthe innovation-decision process are informationexchanges through communication channels aboutthe innovation; these exchanges take place betweendiffusers and adopters and among adoptersduring each stage of the innovation-decisionprocess. The nature of the exchanges (for example,one-way versus interactive; management-versusstakeholder-centered) and the communicationchannels used to facilitate the exchanges largelyshape the outcome of the diffusion process.

The five stages of Rogers’ model of theinnovation-decision process are described below:

(1) Knowledge. In this stage, a decision-makingunit, such as a technical documentationdepartment, learns of an innovation and seeksinformation to better understand what it is andhow and why it works. Prior conditions, suchas norms of the social system and previouspractice, as well as characteristics of thedecision-making unit, such as communicationbehavior, influence what information the unitseeks out and how the unit interprets theinformation.

(2) Persuasion. In this stage, the decision-makingunit interacts with the innovation on a triallevel and, over time, forms a favorable orunfavorable attitude toward it. The outcomeof the innovation-decision process dependson the decision-making unit’s individual andcollective perceived characteristics of theinnovation. Innovations seen as better in termsof relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,and observability and less complexity are morelikely to be adopted than innovations withoutthese characteristics [37, p. 16]. In this stage,members of a social system share evaluativeinformation about an innovation throughinterpersonal communication networks;subjective opinions of the innovation byclose coworkers are easily accessible andtend to be more convincing than opinionsof change agents or opinions communicatedthrough mass media channels (which facilitateone-way communications) [37, p. 175]. If adecision-making unit does not gain how-toknowledge during this stage, it is likely toreject the innovation [37, p. 173].

(3) Decision. In this stage, members of thedecision-making unit engage in activities


that lead to their decision to adopt or rejectthe innovation. A decision-making unit thathas the opportunity to try out an innovationduring a trial period is more likely to adopt theinnovation [37, p. 177]. CCMS trials thus servea vital role in the diffusion process; duringtrials, participants interact with the systemand with each other, forming favorable orunfavorable individual and collective opinionsthat later shape how they respond to a CCMSduring the implementation stage.

(4) Implementation. In this stage, thedecision-making unit incorporates theinnovation into practice. Diffusion participantswho have had the opportunity to interactwith the innovation on a trial basis and whohave had the opportunity to connect with andlearn from each other through interactivecommunication channels and training shouldhave increased motivation and ability to usethe innovation to achieve shared goals. Sincethe decision-making unit incorporates theinnovation into practice, the unit may wantto reinvent (change or modify) the innovationto increase its rate of adoption and degree ofsustainability [37, p. 180]. Rogers’ extensiveresearch on diffusion processes revealed thatdiffusion agencies, such as vendors, often viewreinvention unfavorably, but adopters oftenview reinvention as a very desirable qualityand factor the possibility of reinvention intotheir decision to purchase or not purchase anew technology.

(5) Confirmation. In this stage, thedecision-making unit reassesses therelative advantages and disadvantages of theinnovation and decides whether to continue ordiscontinue use of the innovation.

Rogers’ multistaged innovation-decision process,with its emphasis on diffusion as a process ofnegotiating understanding and constructing newknowledge, provides technical communicators auseful framework for understanding how differentapproaches to communication and training caninfluence stakeholders’ attitudes and subsequentactions toward a CCMS. Approaches that emphasizeinteractive communication exchanges throughoutthe CCMS diffusion process will be more successfulthan approaches that emphasize one-way transfersof information.

Concept 3: CCMS Diffusion is Mediated byDifferent Components of Organizational CultureBest practices resources that recognize differentways in which people’s behaviors, attitudes, and

assumptions can impede a CCMS implementationemphasize the need for CCM initiative leadersto assess organizational readiness for CCM,including readiness for collaboration and change[8], [18]–[21], [45], [46]. They also offer leadersuseful strategies for gaining buy-in from CCMstakeholders. Hackos, for example, offers astakeholder analysis table that guides leaders inidentifying internal and external stakeholders tothe organization and ranking each stakeholder’sinterest in, attitude toward, and support for theproject [36, p. 346–347]. Similarly, Rockley andCooper stress the need for leaders to identify thepotential pain points, issues, and consequences oftransitioning to CCM by listening to what peoplein the organization have to say about problemsand potential solutions [1, p. 231]. Behind thesesuggested practices is the hard-learned lesson thatwhen people do not feel valued or invested in achange initiative, they are more likely to resist it.What accounts for how people feel and act, however,is not discussed in any comprehensive way in CCMbest practices resources. Leaders do not get a verytextured understanding of how cultural dynamicsshape people’s actions and perceptions, and thesedynamics can be powerful forces of disruption in thediffusion of a CCMS. Understanding how to identifyand assess disruptive cultural dynamics can helpleaders plan more strategic change initiatives.

Activity Theory is a useful tool for understandingCCMS diffusion as a contextualized, mediatedprocess, with “mediated” referring to all of the toolsand sign systems (such as human language) thatshape the outcome of an activity. Activity Theory,which grew out of Marxist-based approachesto psychology, holds that a subject’s activity isembedded within a larger social context. Ryder[47] summarized the conceptual framework ofActivity Theory, as articulated by Engeström [48],as follows:

An activity is undertaken by a human agent(subject) who is motivated toward a solution ofa problem or purpose (object), and mediatedby tools (artifacts) in collaboration with others(community). The structure of the activityis constrained by cultural factors includingconventions (rules) and social strata (divisionof labor) within the context [47, p. 3].

In Activity Theory, an individual’s actions arealways situated in the larger context of an activitysystem—a community of subjects (for example,information developers) who share a commonobject, or goal, of activity (for example, evaluating


Fig. 1. Example activity system showing different system components that mediate team member’s individual andcollective actions toward a common goal.

a CCMS) [48]–[53]. These actions are mediated (orshaped) by different components of the activitysystem (or social context) where the individual is anactive participant. Particularly powerful mediatingcomponents include the larger organizationalcommunity, division of labor, artifacts, and rules.Fig. 1 depicts an example activity system anddifferent components of the system that mediateteam member’s individual and collective actionstoward a common goal, such as reconfiguring aCCMS workflow or evaluating the review functionof a CCMS. The primary components of an activitysystem, as depicted by Engeström [48] and shownin Fig. 1, are the subject, object, and community.The relationship between the subject and object ismediated by artifacts; the relationship between thesubject and community is mediated by rules; andthe relationship between community and object ismediated by division of labor.

To illustrate how different components of an activitysystem can be powerful forces of disruption inCCMS diffusion, I describe below three examplesfrom my study of a technical documentationdepartment’s trial of a CCMS. These examples focuson the team charged with evaluating the CCMS forthe department.

• Division of Labor: A team member’s status ona team or in a department can influence howhe or she sees himself or herself and his or herwillingness to collaborate or accept change. Inmy study, the division of labor among teammembers became a significant factor in howindividual members perceived the CCMS trial,their role in the trial, and their role in the larger

technical documentation community. Carol, atechnical writer I, for example, was the newestmember of the team, and even though she wasthe only member with experience implementinga CCMS in a previous position, she did notfeel that she had yet earned the authority tospeak, to influence decisions on the team orin the department. Because team leaders didnot ask her to share her knowledge or leadteam meetings or activities, and because shedid not feel safe expressing her opinions inteam meetings, where dominant personalitiesprevailed, Carol became withdrawn, frustrated,and unmotivated to collaborate. Her perceivedand real status in the technical documentationcommunity mediated her actions throughout thetrial; the more silenced and unappreciated shefelt, the less motivated she was to contribute herexpertise to the team’s decision-making process.

• Community: Technical documentation’srelationship with the larger organizationalcommunity negatively affected the team’smotivation to invest significant time and energyinto the CCMS trial. The team felt that technicaldocumentation was a scapegoat in the largerorganization. Because they did not feel respected,they felt that upper management might pullfunding for the CCM initiative at any time, asthey had done so in the past. The team thusdid not make the project a priority and spentminimal time interacting with the system.This partial-commitment approach to the trialresulted in the team not acquiring the knowledgethey needed to evaluate the extent to which theCCMS would support technical documentation’sgoals for CCM.


Whereas technical documentation’s relationshipwith the larger organization mediated the team’sperceptions of the CCM initiative, the team’srelationship with subject matter expert reviewersmediated their perceptions of and interactionswith the CCMS. Reviewers were used to reviewingcontent in an ad-hoc fashion and submittingcomments in whatever form was easiest for them.The team members had learned over time thatoffering reviewers flexibility in how they providedfeedback increased the quality and timeliness offeedback that writers received; thus, the teammembers wanted a CCMS with a review functionflexible enough to accommodate different reviewstyles. The team ultimately spent more timeevaluating the review function of the CCMSthan any other function because maintaining acooperative relationship with reviewers was ofutmost importance to the team.

• Rules: Explicit and implicit rules as well ashabits of practice mediated the team’s actionstoward their goal of evaluating the CCMS. Forexample, whenever the engineering departmentset a product release deadline, writers intechnical documentation knew that they wouldbe scurrying days before the deadline to completeall documentation on time. Writers had cometo learn that only through frequent remindersand applied pressure would require reviewers tolook at documents and sign off in time for thewriters to meet the release deadline. This habit ofpractice created ongoing tension between writersand required reviewers, a tension that motivatedthe team to want to adopt a CCMS but alsodiscouraged them from adopting any system thatreviewers might perceive as further complicatingtheir work (an implicit rule by which all writersabided).

As these examples show, CCM initiative leadersneed to be mindful of cultural dynamics thatmay impede or facilitate successful diffusion.Each activity system (for example, technicaldocumentation, engineering, training, marketing)shares a language, history, value system, structure,and set of rules, practices, and artifacts unique tothat culture. These cultural dynamics define eachculture and influence how members of each cultureinterpret and act upon new information.

KEY LESSONS

This section offers technical communicatorsrecommendations for carrying out a CCMS diffusionproject. These recommendations include ways to (1)

assess cultural dynamics in the organization and(2) implement diffusion enablers to facilitate sharedunderstanding and learning and to guide actionstoward common goals.

The recommendations, which grow out of thethree situated views of CCMSs and their diffusionin organizations, are meant to complement andsupport the excellent best practices resourcesavailable on content strategy development, and thetechnical implementation of CCMSs. They are alsomeant to complement change management bestpractices resources.

Lesson 1: Assess Cultural Dynamics in theOrganization This section offers researchquestions that you can ask to assess the culturaldynamics of an organization and how thesedynamics are shaping or will likely shape people’sCCMS diffusion project perceptions and subsequentactions. The implementation and adoption ofa CCMS, particularly when it replaces desktoppublishing, represents a massive technological andcultural change in the day-to-day work of thoserequired to use the system. When people do notfeel motivated to adopt a CCMS or feel equippedwith the ability to do so, they are likely to resistthe CCMS.

People’s feelings matter. Robitaille warns CCMinitiative leaders of the negative impact that authoremotions may have on the implementation of aCCMS [18]. He suggests that leaders, in addition toassessing organizational strengths, need to assessan organization’s emotional health; a healthyatmosphere increases people’s willingness to acceptchange and contribute to the greater good of theorganization [18, p. 14]. Selber, too, argues for achange initiative that accounts for people’s feelingsabout their existing job and their ability to do thatjob well [54]. He advocates for an initiative thatincludes a thorough assessment of people’s feelingsabout the status quo and an assessment of theextent to which existing resources, incentives, andleadership will support people’s willingness andability to learn and use a new technology [54, p.225]. As Activity Theory suggests, people’s actionsare situated in the larger context of an activitysystem, and these actions are shaped by culturaldynamics. Understanding cultural dynamics canhelp leaders better prepare for a CCMS diffusionproject.

Table I presents different kinds of questionsthat you can ask CCMS stakeholders to assesscultural dynamics. Each set of questions addresses


TABLE IRESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSING CULTURAL DYNAMICS

particular cultural elements, such as hierarchyand division of expertise in a workgroup, thatmediate CCMS adoption processes. The questionsare adapted from Dayton’s model for researchinginformation technology adoption and use inorganizations [23]. The focus of his model and,thus, the proposed questions is on mapping the

activity system of the group attempting to adopta new technology (I use “workgroup” to refer toa department, unit, or team). The table does notpresent an exclusive list of questions but rather asampling of the kinds of questions that you mightask before, during, and after a CCMS diffusionproject.


TABLE I(CONTINUED)

Answers to these questions may be discoveredthrough interviews, informal meetings, onlinequestionnaires, focus groups, and discussionforums. You might, for example, set up a series

of informal meetings with representatives fromdifferent stakeholder groups, such as informationdevelopers, product managers, and translators,and ask participants to discuss four to five targeted


questions from Table I. Ideally, a discussionfacilitator and notetaker would be assigned. Atthe end of the meeting, you could ask participantsto complete a questionnaire that asks them torespond to the same questions, selecting answersfrom a Likert scale (for example, strongly disagreeto strongly agree), from a group of words (forexample, collegial, content, hostile, fearful), orfrom true/false or multiple choice options. Thiskind of qualitative (discussion) and quantitative(questionnaire) feedback can help you identifycultural dynamics that may need to be addressedat different stages of the CCMS diffusion process.A questionnaire alone could also be valuable, withgraphs and tables displaying data patterns thatindicate areas of strength and potential concern;results of the questionnaire could help you identifyquestions for further discussion in interviews,meetings, focus groups, or forums. How youchoose to use the sample questions in Table I toassess cultural dynamics in your organization willdepend on local constraints, needs, and goals.The key to conducting a useful assessment is toestablish an environment of engagement and opencommunication, one where people feel safe toexpress concerns, ideas, and problems.

Each set of questions in Table I is followed by asample finding and a sample implication from myassessment of a technical documentation group’sCCMS trial period. Each finding reveals culturaldynamics that shaped why the group approachedthe trial the way that they did. I include the samplefindings as examples of what you might learn aboutworkgroups through an assessment. I includethe sample takeaways as examples of what theworkgroup might have done differently to overcomesome of the cultural barriers to diffusion. Importantto note is the demographic of the organizationstudied: the organization was a US company with atechnical documentation group centrally located atthe company headquarters. Cultural dynamics aredifferent in non-US companies and in companiesthat have distributed writing teams (across the USor worldwide). Research questions for assessingcultural dynamics within and across organizationalunits should thus be adapted to accommodate forvarying organizational and team demographics. SeeAppendix A for additional sample questions youcan ask to assess cultural dynamics.

Assessing cultural dynamics can help CCMinitiative leaders anticipate barriers to diffusionand work to overcome those barriers duringthe early stages of diffusion. For example, if theassessment reveals that workgroup members

feel undervalued and underappreciated, a leadermight anticipate that the members will feelunmotivated to collaborate with others in the groupor with others on other teams. Feelings of beingundervalued and underappreciated also tend tolead to information hoarding and self-relianceproblems. Group members are likely to continuethese habits of practice in a new CCM environment.If these feelings lead members to believe thattheir work does not matter and that learning newprocesses and tools is not worth their time, theywill likely resist investing themselves fully in theCCM initiative.

Throwing more tools, processes, or training ata cultural problem is not going to solve theproblem—it is not going to change how people feeland, thus, how they act. The key is for leaders todevelop, as part of a change initiative, strategiesfor cultivating the kind of culture necessary forachieving CCM initiative goals. Gaining buy-infrom all stakeholders is essential. So too isunderstanding resistance to change and takingaction to address cultural dynamics that mayimpede diffusion progress. The strategies discussedin the next section can help ameliorate problemsidentified in the assessment of cultural dynamics.

Lesson 2: Implement Diffusion Enablers toFacilitate Learning and Shared UnderstandingDiffusion enablers, a concept developed byAndersen and Robidoux [45], are activities andtools that support the interactive communicationand learning activities necessary for overcomingcultural barriers to diffusion; these barriers may berooted in people’s perceptions, motivation levels, orability levels (for example, “know-how” knowledge).Technology transfer is often a “chaotic, disorderlyprocess involving groups and individuals who mayhold different views about the value and potentialuse of the technology” [25, p.16] and who may usedifferent vocabularies, have different motives, andrepresent widely differing cultures [25, p. 10]. Giventhis, diffusion enablers are important for facilitatingknowledge acquisition and shared understandingand for guiding actions. They help structure teammember interactions, keep everyone focused on thetask at hand, and help team members know who isdoing what, when, how, where, and why. Throughtheir facilitation of interactive communication andlearning activities, enablers attempt to overcomeproblems associated with information transferapproaches to diffusion. In particular, enablerscreate opportunities for learners to turn their“about” knowledge of a CCMS into “know how”knowledge. By equipping people with the ability to


TABLE I(CONTINUED)

achieve shared goals, diffusion enablers increasepeople’s motivation to want to achieve those goals.

The results of the assessment of cultural dynamicsshould help leaders identify enablers useful foraddressing problems associated with people’smotivation to contribute to a CCMS diffusionproject and their ability to do so. Different typesof enablers include interactive communicationchannels, training programs, and collaborativelydeveloped, shared guides (Fig. 2).

Interactive Communication Channels: Implementinteractive communication channels that facilitatesynchronous, interactive communications, andinclude options such as videoconferencing andface-to-face meetings. Such channels are inherentlymore effective than asynchronous, one-waycommunication channels, such as email andwebinars, in helping individuals of different groups

Fig. 2. Diffusion enablers.

and expertise (often of different organizationalcontexts) come to a shared understanding ofmeaning [26], [37], [38]. Synchronous, interactivechannels allow for “a negotiation and sharing ofperspectives, values, language, knowledge, and soforth” as opposed to back-and-forth exchangesof information through technological channels


[26, p. 10]. They also help people establishinterpersonal relationships, which are critical togaining buy-in for major change initiatives. Whenindividuals have established relationships withother individuals within their workgroup andacross other workgroups, they are more motivatedand better enabled to achieve shared goals.

Communication channels that facilitate negotiationand the sharing of perspectives, values, language,and knowledge are particularly important whenpeople are learning new concepts, methodologies,and tools that they need to use in practice.These interactive channels allow for the kind ofnegotiation and guided feedback necessary forlearning. One-way communication channels tendnot to elicit the kinds of meaningful questions,discussions, and feedback essential to coming to ashared understandings of meaning and acquiringknow-how knowledge.

For example, CCMS vendors often communicateproduct information to potential adopters throughmarketing material and documentation, and theyattempt to help potential adopters learn abouttheir product and how to use it through a varietyof communication channels, including trainingworkshops and webinars, email, conference calls,and support portals. These resources, however,tend to facilitate one-way communications andrepresent an information transfer approachto CCMS diffusion. They tend not to facilitateknowledge acquisition and shared understandingsof terms, processes, problems, and solutions; forexample, at my study site, the communicationchannels that were meant to support learningactivities were used mainly for information transfer.As a result, the potential adopters spent somuch time trying to decipher messages from thevendor and figure out what the different CCMSapplications meant in terms of day-to-day practicethat they ended the trial without a good sense ofhow the content component authoring, review, andpublishing processes enabled through the CCMSwould work for their social system.

Types of interactive communication channelsthat leaders might implement include face-to-facemeetings or videoconferencing for distributedgroups, a knowledge base, and an online CCMSuser group:

• Face-to-face meetings or videoconferencingfor distributed groups. This channel isparticularly important when a group is learninga new concept or practice or when two groups

representing widely differing cultures areattempting to work together. This synchronous,interactive communication channel provides arich opportunity for participants to share andtransfer knowledge, negotiate, problem solve,and respond to nonverbal cues, which mightsignal confusion, disapproval, or other feelingsthat in a one-way communication channel wouldnot be apparent.

• Knowledge base. This channel is a centralized,open access repository of all of the resourcesstakeholders need to achieve shared goals. Aknowledge base can facilitate interaction andencourage discussion. It might include scriptsoutlining procedures for completing tasks,project plans, Who’s Who maps and personalintroductions, and frequently asked questions. Itmight also include status updates, best practices,tips, ideas, and collaboratively developed guides(another diffusion enabler). The knowledgebase serves as a knowledge-management tool,facilitates learning and knowledge acquisition,and codifies tacit knowledge.

• Online CCMS user group. This channel is similarto an online discussion forum. It enables CCMSstakeholders, such as information developers,editors, training specialists, content strategists,product managers, and marketing specialists,to share knowledge and best practices. It alsoenables stakeholders to engage in knowledgemaking and meaning making. This channelis useful for facilitating interaction, codifyingtacit knowledge, and connecting stakeholdersrepresenting disparate groups. Vendors mightimplement a similar online user group thatenables clients to share knowledge, experiences,and best practices.

CCM initiative leaders need to be cognizant of thecommunication channels available to participantsthroughout the diffusion process. Some channelsfacilitate one-way communications whereas otherchannels facilitate negotiation and the sharing ofperspectives, values, language, and knowledge.Interactive communication channels can reducebarriers to understanding and learning andincrease stakeholder engagement, which is criticalto a successful change initiative [18]. They can alsoprovide stakeholders opportunities to have a voicein key CCMS selection, design, and implementationdecisions; as Luecke argues:

Motivation and commitment to change aregreatest when the people who will have to makethe change and live with it are instrumental


in identifying the problem and planning itssolution. [55, p. 34]

Training: To support new processes, methodologies,and tools introduced in a CCMS diffusion project,develop training programs that are hands-on,interactive, and tailored rather than informationcentered. Moving away from an informationtransfer approach to training enables participantsto develop critical know-how knowledge, to learnfrom each other, and to understand how a CCMSimplementation will impact roles and day-to-daypractice.

A good training program, Robitaille argues, focuseson learning, which “is known to be a primaryagent for bringing passion to the workplace” [18,p. 16]. What it means to learn, however, is oftenmisunderstood, resulting in training programsthat focus on information transfer, what Friererefers to as the “banking concept of education”[56]. This concept presents learners as passiveobjects, or containers, into which teachers candeposit knowledge. The goal of learning in thisapproach is to memorize facts; understanding andapplication of knowledge are not emphasized. Wheninstructors transmit new information to trainingparticipants through one-way communicationchannels or through demonstrations or lectures,participants are likely to learn a lot about thesubject but not develop the know-how necessaryto apply that about knowledge to practice. Forparticipants to gain valuable know-how, trainingneeds to be hands-on and interactive, and it needsto focus on the roles and day-to-day practice of theparticipants. These characteristics of an effectivetraining workshop are described below.

• Hands-on and Interactive. As much as possible,training workshops should allow participants toengage in the practice in question and to cometo a shared understanding of meaning throughnegotiation and communication with trainers.This learner-centered, interactive approach helpsparticipants build new knowledge upon theirfoundation of previous knowledge by givingthem opportunities to put their new knowledgeinto practice. Whether trainers are vendorrepresentatives, consultants, or an internalteam of experts, they need to offer trainingprograms that facilitate learning. Informationdevelopment groups, particularly those newto structured authoring, minimalism, DarwinInformation Typing Architecture, and CCMStools, need opportunities to put new information

into practice and to learn from others duringtraining sessions.In addition to offering hands-on, interactivelearning experiences, CCM initiative leadersshould schedule frequent informal work sessions.These sessions should provide participantsopportunities to discuss what they learned intraining and to apply what they learned (forexample, following a new process or authoringmethodology) in a shared space that facilitatesconversation and continued learning.Lectures and demonstrations should be usedsparingly because these information transferapproaches to training encourage passivelearning. Participants may leave thinking thatthey “get it” when, in fact, they have no ideahow to apply it in practice what they had heardor saw. This was the case with the technicaldocumentation team that I studied. For sixmonths, the team attended CCMS trainingsessions, which were either face-to-face lecturesor webinar demonstrations, and each time theywould leave feeling good about the coverage of atopic but unsure of how what they learned wouldapply in practice. When they would attempt tofollow their training notes and perform tasks ontheir own, they would run into various barriersto achieving their goal and become agitated anddisheartened by the process. These barriersand the questions that they raised could havebeen addressed in training workshops thatemphasized student engagement and learning.

• Tailored. Participants will gain valuableknow-how knowledge when training workshopsare tailored to the specific needs of the groupevaluating or adopting a CCMS. Tailored trainingmeans training that helps participants makesense of new information in terms of theirday-to-day work. Learning is always local andsituational [38], [52]–[54], [57], [58]. Whenlearning a new concept, practice, or technology,one gathers new information and attempts tomake sense of what it means in terms of theculture in which the new knowledge will be putinto practice. Training workshops, then, need tofavor instruction and materials that are tailoredto the specific roles and day-to-day practice ofthe participants and that focus on the contentand processes with which participants will beengaged. One size fits all, generic instruction,and materials are more likely to frustrateand alienate participants than to help themunderstand and apply new information.Participants need opportunities to work withtheir own content in the roles that they will


assume post CCMS implementation. In thecase of the technical documentation group thatI studied, the CCMS vendor gave the teamgeneric content and default roles to test theirunderstanding of concepts and how to completeparticular tasks. The vendor attempted to teachhow to edit, manage, and review this contentthrough webinar demonstrations. The webinarparticipants would come to training sessionswith questions and specific information needs;however, the instructor tended to begin a sessionwith a preset agenda and, thus, neglected toask participants their goals for the session ortailor the training to help participants achievethose goals. As a result, participants wouldleave the training sessions with notes onperforming generic tasks but no new knowledgeon how best to perform the tasks with whichthey most needed help. The participants oftenstayed after the web sessions to discuss whatthey had learned and to compare notes; ona number of occasions, they came to realizethat they each had a different understandingof a concept or the instructor’s process forperforming a task. This instructor-centered,information-transfer approach to training gavestudents a lot of information about the CCMSbut little opportunity to develop the “know how”to put that “about” knowledge into use.

Collaboratively Developed, Shared Guides:Encourage stakeholders to develop sharedguides that serve as a common framework forunderstanding and as a reference point for allcommunications about all aspects of a CCMSdiffusion project, including goals, tasks, measures,processes, concepts, help documentation, plans,interfaces, training, meetings, and so on.

People learning new processes, methodologies, andtechnologies need direction; guides such as processmaps, vision statements, meeting agendas, testplans, and Who’s Who maps or diagrams enablepeople to achieve shared goals. Guides facilitateinteractions within a team or between teams thatmust work together to achieve a common goal.They also support problem solving and help preventcommunication and planning breakdowns within asocial system. Guides, what social constructionistsand activity theorists have also referred to asrhetorical mediators [26], [40], [41], are usefulfor facilitating an ongoing, interactive process ofidea exchange, negotiation, and learning betweenvendors, system integrators, or consultants andpotential CCMS adopters. Guides are also usefulfor facilitating these kinds of exchanges between

the different workgroups that have a stake inthe CCM initiative (for example, engineering,training, technical documentation, marketing, andinformation technology).

An information development team assigned toevaluate a CCMS, for example, might collaborate(through interactive communication channels) todevelop a test plan with clear goals, milestones,deadlines, and measures. This guide would thenserve as a common framework for understandingwho is going to do what, when, where, how, andwith whom. It would also serve as a means forassessing progress toward achieving goals. Whenindividual team members feel that they have hada stake in the development of a plan—that theyhave played an integral role in the negotiationprocess—they are much more likely to be motivatedto collaborate, ask questions, and offer feedback.

Process maps, too, can provide a commonframework for understanding individual andcollaborative tasks over time. Process maps arevisual representations of the purpose and structureof a process; they provide explicit proceduralscripts for accomplishing tasks [59] and showthe relationships between and among tasks[60]. Collaboratively developed, centrally locatedprocess maps enable team members “to frameindividual efforts within an overall defined process,which enables temporal coordination of individualefforts” [59, p. 343]. Such maps can also serveas an effective means to engage team membersin consensus building, build team morale, sparkinnovative problem solving, and facilitate learning.Team members are more motivated and betterenabled to achieve shared goals when they knowwhat is expected of them and why and how theyare expected to accomplish assigned tasks. Wheneveryone follows an agreed upon process structure,individuals are more likely to seek help and receivehelp from their peers when needed.

When groups that represent widely differingcultures must work together, such as vendorsand technical documentation or engineering andtechnical documentation, developing guides tofacilitate interactions and shared understandingsof meaning becomes even more important. Differentcultures often speak different languages; sharedifferent values, practices, and roles; and drawon different problem-solving strategies. Withouta common ground on which the cultures canunderstand each other, the two cultures willstruggle to achieve shared goals. Guides, whichmight be as simple as a meeting agenda or as


complex as a workflow plan, provide this commonground. Ideally, members from the differentcultures will collaboratively develop the sharedguides. Through this process, stakeholders willcome to understand each other’s goals and needsand feel joint ownership of the guides and theactions that result. Stakeholders will also be morelikely to ask questions, offer feedback, and identifyproblems and solutions.

Guides should be posted in a centralized location,such as a knowledge repository, accessible toall CCM initiative stakeholders. Streamlinedprocesses and transparent communication are keyto motivating people to achieve shared goals andequipping them with the ability to do so.

IMPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE

CCM initiative leaders can work to overcomepeople factors that often impede successful CCMSdiffusion by assessing cultural dynamics in theirorganizations and, based on assessment results,implementing appropriate diffusion enablers.Toward this end, this tutorial offers leaders a seriesof research questions useful for conducting theassessment. Such an assessment tends not to bepart of most CCM change initiatives, which focusprimarily on content strategy (preparing contentfor change) and CCMS implementation (preparingthe technical environment for change). Changeinitiatives that do not focus on preparing peoplefor change, however, are more likely to be met withstakeholder resistance [1], [36]. An assessment ofcultural dynamics can help leaders understandstakeholders’ perspectives, assumptions, andactions and what accounts for them. Leaders canthen use assessment results to determine whatkinds of diffusion enablers are needed to addressproblems associated with people’s motivationto contribute to a CCMS diffusion project andtheir ability to do so. Diffusion enablers, whichsupport interactive communication and learningactivities, facilitate people acquiring a sharedunderstanding and knowledge of new technologies,methodologies, processes, goals, and expectations.Shared understanding and knowledge will increasepeople’s motivation and ability to work together toachieve CCM initiative goals.

When conducting a cultural assessment, leadersshould focus not just on the internal dynamics ofan individual team but also on the relationship ofthe team with other teams in the organization andwith the organization as a whole, particularly withorganizational leadership, which has important

effects on implementation success. Althoughthe study described here focuses mostly oninternal group dynamics, the research questionsfor assessing cultural dynamics are designed toincrease the leaders’ understandings of theselarger, more complex relationships.

One of the biggest challenges of conducting acultural assessment and implementing diffusionenablers will be finding the time and securing theresources required to carry out these activities.The costs upfront will be significant for sure,but these costs will not outweigh the costs of aninitiative fraught with problems due to stakeholderresistance and apathy and other people factorsthat often contribute to problematic or failedCCMS implementations. The key for leaders is toplan for each stage of the diffusion process, fromthe knowledge through the confirmation stage.Conducting a cultural assessment in the knowledgestage, when people are first learning and formingopinions about new tools, processes, and otherchanges, will allow leaders time to implementdiffusion enablers to support the persuasionstage, when people interact with the CCMS ona trial level and, over time, form individual andcollective favorable or unfavorable attitudes towardit. Viewing a CCMS as a social construct can helpleaders understand why the persuasion stage isarguably the most critical stage of diffusion—inthis stage, members of a workgroup tend to share,through socialization, interaction, or negotiation,their assumptions, knowledge, and expectationsabout a technology. Dayton [23] suggests thatthis sharing of technological frames leads to thegroup constructing a joint technological frame thatstructures and eventually stabilizes the meaningof the technology for them [23, p. 365]. A negativetechnological frame often results in resistance toa new technology, whereas a positive frame oftenresults in acceptance.

Another challenge that leaders may face inconducting an assessment is stakeholder resistanceto sharing perceptions and concerns with thosein supervisory roles, as stakeholders may worryabout job security and promotion consequences.One way to navigate this challenge is to look tojunior writers who are well-respected, influentialteam members to lead the assessment project. Inhis analysis of more than 5000 diffusion studies,Rogers [37] found that opinion leaders were keyfacilitators of diffusion in a social system. Opinionleaders are individuals who informally influenceothers’ attitudes and behaviors surrounding aninnovation; they are members of the social system


who others tend to look to for their technicalcompetence, social accessibility, and conformity tothe system’s norms [37, p. 27]. Assigning opinionleaders, as opposed to those in supervisory roles,to develop assessment methods and tools and toconduct the assessment can help alleviate at leastsome stakeholder resistance to sharing perceptions,concerns, and ideas about a CCM initiative. Inkeeping with ethical approaches to conductinghuman-subject research, leaders need to ensureassessment participants that opinions, ideas, orconcerns shared in informal meetings, interviews,focus groups, or a questionnaire, will not be linkedto individual names. The goal of an assessment isto assess the emotional climate of the organization,not on how individuals are positioning themselveswithin a change initiative.

Leaders who understand and plan for theshaping force of cultural dynamics in the CCMSdiffusion process and who follow best practices fortransitioning to CCM—including analyzing businessand customer needs; developing an enterprise-widestrategy for creating, managing, and deliveringcontent; and developing a change-managementplan—will improve their chances for successfulCCMS implementation. Leaders are encouragedto use the research questions and diffusionenablers articulated here as a starting point fornegotiating people factors that can impede thediffusion process; questions and enablers will,understandably, need to adapt to particularorganizational contexts.


APPENDIX A


REFERENCES

[1] A. Rockley and C. Cooper, Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy 2nd ed., Indianapolis, IN,USA: New Riders, 2012.

[2] CMS Watch, “The XML and component content management report 2009: Comprehensive productevaluations,” ver. 2.

[3] B. Gu and G. Pullman, “Mapping out the key parameters of content management,” in Content Management:Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice, G. Pullman and B. Gu, Eds. Amityville, NY, USA: BaywoodPublishing, 2009, pp. 1–12.

[4] W. Hart-Davidson, G. Bernhardt, M. McLeod, M. Rife, and J. Grabill, “Coming to content management:Inventing infrastructure for organizational knowledge work,” Tech. Commun. Quart., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 10–34,Winter 2008.

[5] S. Jeffrey-Poulter, “Creating and producing digital content across multiple platforms,” J. Med. Practice, vol. 3,no. 3, pp. 155–164, Dec. 2003.

[6] C. Johnson and S. Fowler, “Analyze before you act: CMS and knowledge transfer,” in Content Management:Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice, G. Pullman and B. Gu, Eds. Amityville, NY, USA: BaywoodPublishing, 2009, pp. 43–56.

[7] R. Andersen, “Component content management: Shaping the discourse through innovation diffusion researchand reciprocity,” Tech. Commun. Quart., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 384–411, 2011.

[8] P. Kostur, Technology’s impact on its users. Rockley Rep., vol. 1, no. 3. [Online]. Available:http://www.rockley.com/TheRockleyReport/V1I3/People%20Processes%20and%20Change.htm

[9] J. Hackos, M. McNamera, R. Stachowiak, J. Gollner, and M. Eleder. (2010, Jun.). Stats on CMS failures?CIDM (Center for Information-Development Management) LinkedIn group discussion. [Online]. Available:http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=1853169&type=member&item=23025183&qid=dd436e33-9c00-4c54-a0f0-b7c39905e433&trk=group_search_item_list-0-b-ttl

[10] O. Berg, Why your CM initiative fails, The Content Economy. [Online]. Available: http://www.thecontenteconomy.com/2007/02/why-your-cm-initiative-fails.html

[11] P. Trotter, The 7 challenges of implementing a content management system, ECM Connection, [Online].Available: http://www.ecmconnection.com/doc.mvc/The-7-Challenges-Of-Implementing-A-Content-Ma-0002

[12] R. Bailie, “Top ten mistakes in content management,” Intercom, pp. 18–21, Mar. 2007.[13] J. Hackos. (2010, Jun.). Stats on CMS Failures? [Msg. 12]. CIDM (Center for Information-Development

Management) LinkedIn Group Discussion. [Online]. Available: http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=1853169&type=member&item=23025183&qid=dd436e33-9c00-4c54-a0f0-b7c39905e433&trk=group_search_item_list-0-b-ttl

[14] E. Hamer, “Implementing a CMS: A game-changing corporate initiative,” Intercom, pp. 22–23, Mar. 2007.[15] S. Wahl, Best practices for implementing a CMS for technical publications—Part 1,CIDM Inf. Manage. News,

[Online]. Available: http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/200609/first.htm[16] J. Carr, Case study: Developing a Sharepoint 2010 strategy or how setting it up and

‘Getting it Out There’ is not a strategy, Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. Bull., [Online]. Available:http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec-10/DecJan11_Carr.html

[17] A. Rockley, Best practices: Why start with analysis and design?The Rockley Report, vol. 1, no. 1. [Online].Available: http://www.rockley.com/TheRockleyReport/V1I1/Best%20Practices.htm

[18] P. Robitaille, Change management: Dealing with emotions, The Rockley Report, vol. 2, no. 2. [Online]. Available:http://www.rockley.com/TheRockleyReport/V2I2/People%20Processes%20and%20Change.htm

[19] J. Hackos, “Information process maturity—How does your organization measure up?” CIDM Inf. Manage.News, [Online]. Available: http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/2011/201105/feature.htm

[20] C. Shumate, Implementing the big 3: A project management view on lessons learned onimplementing an XML/DITA/CCMS publishing environment,Best Practices: A Publicationof The Center for Information-Development Management, vol. 13, no. 1. [Online]. Available:http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/members/pdfs/reprints/BP11-02Shumate.pdf

[21] G. Oakes, “Creating clear governance—How to enable good decision making in complex organizations,” inTIMAF Information Management Best Practices, B. Boiko and E. M. Hartman, Eds. the Netherlands: ErikHartman Communicatie, 2010, vol. 1, pp. 201–217.

[22] Vasont Systems, Busting the myths of component content management systems, CMQuickTips: Tips for Implementing and Using a Content Management System. [Online]. Available:http://cmtips.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/busting-the-myths-of-component-content-management-systems?

[23] D. Dayton, “A hybrid analytical framework to guide studies of innovative IT adoption by work groups,” Tech.Commun. Quart., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 355–382, 2006.

[24] N. Coppola, “Guest editor’s introduction: Communicaiton in technology transfer and diffusion: Defining thefield,” Tech. Commun. Quart., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 285–292, 2006.

[25] F. Williams and D. V. Gibson, “Introduction,” in Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective, F.Williams and D. V. Gibson, Eds. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 1990, pp. 9–18.

[26] S. Doheny-Farina, Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology: Case Studies of Technical Communication in TechnologyTransfers. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1992.

[27] CMS Watch. (2008). “The XML and component content management report 2008,” CMS Watch, Ver. 1.


[28] A. Duin and C. Hansen, “Setting a sociotechnical agenda in nonacademic writing,” in Nonacademic Writing:Social Theory and Technology, A. Duin and C. Hansen, Eds. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum Associates, 1996,pp. 1–15.

[29] M. J. Hatch, Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997.

[30] K. Munir, “Being different: How normative and cognitive aspects of institutional environments influencetechnology transfer,” Human Rel., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1403–1428, Dec. 2002.

[31] B. Nardi and V. O’Day, Information Ecologies: Using Technology With Heart. Cambridge, MA, USA: MITPress, 1999.

[32] W. Orlikowski and D. Gash, “Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations,”ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 174–207, Apr. 1994.

[33] S. Sarker, Technology adoption by groups: A test of twin predictions based on social structure andtechnological characteristics, Proc. DIGIT. [Online]. Available: http://aisel.aisnet.org/digit2006/7/

[34] W. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA, USA:MIT Press, 1995.

[35] T. Pinch and W. Bijker, “The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and thesociology of technology might benefit each other,” Social Studies Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 399–441, Aug. 1984.

[36] J. Hackos, Information Development: Managing Your Documentation Projects, Portfolio, People, 5thed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2006.

[37] E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, USA: Free Press, 2003.[38] J. Brown and P. Duguid, The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press,

2000.[39] D. Dobrin, Writing and Technique. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE, 1989.[40] P. Attewell, “Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing,” Organiz.

Sci., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, Feb. 1992.[41] R. Fichman, “The diffusion and assimilation of information technology innovations,” in Framing the Domains of

IT Management: Projecting the Futur Through the Past, R. W. Zmud, Ed. Cincinnati, OH, USA: PinnaflexEducational Resources, 1999, pp. 105–128.

[42] M. M. Brown, “Technology diffusion and the ‘Knowledge Barrier’: The dilemma of stakeholder participation,”Public Performance Manage. Rev., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 345–359, Jun. 2003.

[43] R. Fichman and C. Kemerer, “The assimilation of software process innovations: An organizational learningperspective,” Manage. Sci., vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1345–1363, Oct. 1997.

[44] N. Saraf, L. Huigang, X. Yajiong, and H. Qing, “Implementation and the assimilation ofenterprise information systems: An empirical study,” DIGIT 2007 Proceedings [Online]. Available:http://aisel.aisnet.org/digit2007/5/Paper 5

[45] R. Andersen and C. Robidoux, “Building a collaborative writing strategy,” Best Practices: Publi. Ctr.Inf.-Develop. Manage., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 57, 61–70, Jun. 2011.

[46] B. Hewitt and C. Robidoux, Virtual Collaborative Writing in the Workplace: Computer-Mediated CommunicationTechnologies and Processes. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, 2010.

[47] M. Ryder, “What is activity theory?,” [Online]. Available: http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc/act_dff.html[48] Y. Engeström, “Activity theory and individual and social transformation,” in Perspectives on Activity Theory, Y.

Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamäki, Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999, pp. 19–38.[49] V. Kaptelinin and B. Nardi, Acting With Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA,

USA: MIT Press, 2006.[50] A. Leontiev, Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1978.[51] D. Russell, “Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis,” Written Commun., vol. 14,

no. 4, pp. 504–554, Oct. 1997.[52] J. Virkkunen and K. Kuutti, “Understanding organizational learning by focusing on ‘activity systems,’,” J.

Account. Manage. Inf. Technol., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 291–319, Oct. 2000.[53] V. Kaptelinin and B. Nardi, Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications, Proc. ACM SIGCHI. pp. 189–201.

[Online]. Available: http://www.ulfblanke.com/downloads/activity_theory/kaptelinin-basics.pdf[54] S. Selber, Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale, IL, USA: Southern Illinois Press, 2004.[55] R. Luecke, Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.[56] P. Friere, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, USA: Continuum, 2000, 30th Anniversary ed.[57] L. Driskill, “Understanding the writing context in organizations,” in Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings

From the Field, T. Peeples, Ed. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 2003, pp. 105–121.[58] B. Jaworski. (1996, Dec. 11.). Constructivism and teaching—The socio-cultural context. [Online]. Available:

http://www.grout.demon.co.uk/Barbara/chreods.htm[59] P. B. Lowry, J. F. Nunamaker, A. Curtis, and M. R. Lowry, “The impact of process structure on novice,

virtual, collaborative writing teams,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 341–364, Dec. 2005.[60] D. Strauss, How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems, Make

Decisions. San Francisco, CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler, 2002.

Rebekka Andersen is an assistant professor in the UniversityWriting Program at the University of California, Davis, CA,USA, where she teaches courses in professional and technical

communication and digital literacy. Her research focuseson the diffusion of content-management methodologies andtechnologies in information development teams.

planning for the shaping force of cultural dynamics in a component content-management system...

Documents